DUKHISHYAM PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing Memo No. 2241, dt. 14-3-1996 under Annexure- 10 issued by opposite party No. 4 whereunder the petitioner was directed to stop cutting of bamboos from plot No. 80 under holding No. 116 of Mouza Manpur with further direction to the Range Officer not to issue Timber Transit Permit and Cutting Order till final decision of the High Court in OJC No. 910 of 1996. The petitioner has further sought for a direction to opposite party No. 4 to issue Timber Transit Permit in respect of bamboos purchased by the petitioner in auction as highest bidder in Tousi Misc. Case No. 76/84 and 118/84.

(2.) Since the writ application relates to auction of bamboo in two separate touzi misc it is convenient to recount the facts separately. In Touzi Misc. Case No. 76/84, auction was held in respect of 1250 bamboos standing on Plot No. 80 in Holding No. 116 on 28-6-1984 and the petitioner became highest bidder and deposited a sum of Rs. 200/- on the same day. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of payment of the full bid amount and in spite of several litters and reminders. Timber Transit Permit was not issued even though other formalities had been completed. In Touzi Misc. Case No. 118/84. there was auction for 15000 bamboos standing on the very same land. Initially the petitioner became the highest bidder for Rs. 2.015/- and deposited the said amount on the very date of auction, i. e. 187-1985. Subsequently, there was a direction for re-auction and the petitioner again became the highest bidder for Rs. 4.000/- and deposited the balance amount of Rs. 1.985/- on 29-10-1986. In spite of application of the petitioner and recommendation of the Tahsildar (opposite party No. 3) Timber Transit Permit was not issued.Subsequently, the petitioner issued a lawyer's notice in respect of the aforesaid two auctions and after receipt of such notice, joint verification was made as per -reports dt. 4-6-1995, annexed as Annexures- 7 and 8. Thereafter, opposite party, No. 4, the Divisional Forest Officer, issued letter dt. 12-1-1996 permitting the petitioner to convert five clumps each in respect of Government Plot No. 80/1 (Touzi Misc. Case No. 118/84) and Plot No. 80/4 (Touzi Misc. Case No. 76/84) as per Annexure-9. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid order permitting the petitioner to convert bamboos, the petitioner started cutting bamboos. Subsequently, however, the bamboos cut by the petitioner were seized and ultimately the impugned letter dt. 14-3-1996 as per Annexure- 10 was served on the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said direction, the petitioner has filed this writ, application.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party No. 4, the Divisional Forest Officer, while admitting the factum of auctioned and payment by the petitioner, it has been asserted that there was some irregularity committed by the Tahsildar and only dead bamboos had been auctioned and since the report did not indicate about the nature and quality of the bamboos it was directed to convert five clumps, from each plot at randum to test harvest in order to make an assessment about the availability of number of bamboos. It was further asserted that some villagers had filed O. J. C. No. 910/96 challenging the validity of the earlier auctions and the right of the petitioner to remove the bamboos, wherein direction had been given to the competent authority (Collector. Nayagarh). to decide the entitlement of the bamboos and pursuant to the said direction of the High. Court. the Collector had directed the Tahsildar by V. H. F. Message dt. 7-3- 1996 to stop cutting bamboos and to seize the bamboos if already cut and as such the order under Annexure-10 was passed by the Divisional Forest Officer on the basis of the the direction received from the Collector. It is further submitted that the Divisional Forest Officer in his correspondence with the Collector (opp. Party No. 2) has already indicated that since dead bamboos had been auctioned, there was no possibility of the survival of dead bamboos beyond a period of three years and as such the petitioner had no right to claim green bamboos standing on the disputed plots.No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf' of opposite parties 1 to 3.Some of the villagers who had filed O. J. C. No. 910/96 have filed intervention petition and have contended that the bamboos had been planted and nurtured by villagers on the Gochar land and the petitioner should not be permitted to cut and remove the bamboos.